Doug Birkey: [00:00:00] Welcome to the Aerospace Advantage Podcast, brought to you by PenFed. I’m Doug Birkey, Executive Director at the Mitchell Institute. Here on the Aerospace Advantage, we speak with leaders in the DOD, industry, and other subject matter experts to explore the intersection of strategy, operational concepts, technology, and policy when it comes to air and space power. This week it’s time for the Rendezvous. We’re recording this on Thursday, April 2nd, so if world events have developed since then, we’ll catch it on the next episode.

So with that we have the Dean of the Mitchell Institute with us, General Deptula. We’ve also got JV Venable and Jen Reeves of our Mitchell team. And I’d also like to welcome Sledge Harmer and Laser Lazarski, two of our Washington Insiders. Everyone welcome.

Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Hey, Doug, great to be here for another super discussion.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Great to be back.

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Thanks so much.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Always good to be back.

John “JV” Venable: Yeah, it’s great being with you.

Doug Birkey: Oh, thanks guys.

Okay. General Deptula, Operation Epic Fury against Iran has been underway for about a month, and you’ve been a regular commentator on national and international [00:01:00] TV on this one. You know, the media has struggled to outline what’s happening in any depth as they generally devolve into politics, especially regarding the military reality.

So President Trump tried to clarify some of this last night. What’s your take on it?

Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Well it’s a great question Doug. The military reality is that this conflict is not adrift. It’s actually following a very coercive logic. If you strip away that political chatter and the media tendency to reduce everything nowadays to a partisan debate,. What you see is a deliberate campaign that’s designed to impose escalating costs on Iran systematically reducing its ability to project power, and then constrain its options going forward. So, what’s been accomplished so far? The United States and Israel have [00:02:00] imposed major reductions in Iran’s power production, power projection, and production capabilities with nearly 20,000 targets hit to date. And that’s combined between Israel and the US. And that’s not just a matter of volume, because it reflects a sustained effort. To dismantle the machinery that underwrites Iranian aggression. Command networks military infrastructure, military production capacity, their operational support systems.

And then the important part is the connective tissue that allows all those elements to function as an integrated whole. So as a result Iran’s governance has never been in as much disarray. Its command and control and communications with its [00:03:00] military are fractured. And that matters because, and I think most in our audience understand this, in modern conflict, success isn’t simply about destroying platforms or striking a list of individual targets. It’s about dislocating the enemy as a system so leadership cannot effectively see, decide, direct, or recover. So by that measure, this campaign has achieved significant tactical and operational level success. Now the key strategic question is whether those tactical level successes can be converted into a durable regional outcome, and that is where serious analysis must begin.

Because battlespace effects alone don’t automatically produce strategic success. Lasting success is gonna require [00:04:00] more than just military force. That’s what people learn over multiple years of professional military education. It requires discipline, follow through using diplomacy information, economic pressure, partner reassurance, and stronger regional security architecture.

In other words, battlefield success is necessary, but it’s not sufficient. Because the real objective here is not simply to punish Iran or tally the number of targets struck. The real objective is to leave Iran unable to threaten Israel, the Gulf states, US forces, and the global economy at the scale that it could before. And this is the standard by which this campaign should be judged. And ultimately, success should mean more than temporary suppression. It should mean an Iran that’s no longer plotting for revenge, but instead [00:05:00] exists within a much more robust, stable, and peaceful Middle East. So my bottom line on this is the air campaign has produced real and consequential effects. The question now is whether those effects are consolidated through a broader strategy that turns success in war, into lasting security in peace.

Doug Birkey: Yeah, I mean, when we first had a podcast episode discussing this operational, I focused on, Iran could not have nukes and obviously their military power and through proxies destabilizing the Middle East for so long, just couldn’t be tolerated anymore.

I think one of the challenges is the Iranian leadership staying in power. It’s truly existential to them personally. ’cause if they’re not in power, they’re probably not alive. And so I think this focus on regime change is certainly led to complications of how people view this, because really the level to which they’ve been beaten back and put into a box is a massive win.

And that framing needs to be emphasized [00:06:00] more. I’m a little puzzled too, why there’s so much focus on very small losses on the US side. I mean. Losing an E-3 was deeply unfortunate and tactically it’s problematic, you know, having some F-15E shot down with the mistaking action over Kuwait. Got it.

Unfortunate, but we’ll move on from that. But it, those kind of things dominate so much right now and it is important to talk about how we are taking Iran and absolutely putting ’em in a weakened state like none other. And it’s frustrating more isn’t coming out on that.

Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah, no, I think all of that’s spot on.

Doug Birkey: Okay, so Jen, talk to us about Space Power’s role in this fight. I know General Saltzman touched upon this a bit during his remarks at our Space Power Security forum yesterday, but you know, a lot of themes and priorities that we’ve highlighted in recent years, they’re coming to bear right now.

What are your thoughts on it all?

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Oh yeah. So US Cyber Command and US Space Command, were among the first movers to begin quote, “layering [00:07:00] non-kinetic effects in support of Operation Epic Fury.” A quote from the Chairman. He said, “coordinated space and cyber operations effectively disrupted communications and sensor networks across the area of responsibility. Leaving the adversary without the ability to see, coordinate, or respond effectively.” I mean, that’s huge. And then the CSO yesterday, General Bythewood, the Space Component Commander to Space Command, they all echoed that space is in the thick of it, providing the effects for our warfighters while denying those same effects to Iran.

It’s groundbreaking.

Doug Birkey: No, and what I liked about General Saltzmann’s take on it yesterday, he said, look, you know, this is obviously ongoing. I can’t talk in details, but this does not take a lot of imagination. This is missile warning, it’s C2. I mean, it’s a lot of the other classic missions that, I mean, Jen, you’ve talked about this in your recent paper, so we’ve got double down on this stuff.

It’s make or break.

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Absolutely. And then the second part of that when we talk about space superiority, is not just that we get to use space and its effects at the time and place of our [00:08:00] choosing, but we deny the same of our adversary. And I think in the coming days we’re gonna hear a lot more about that.

Doug Birkey: No. So true. Okay, Sledge and Lazer, where does a hill stand on this operation mean? You know, I’ve been watching this and it’s not just a party line things from what I’ve seen in the news. And I think last night’s remarks by President Trump, they might impact part of the discussion. What do you guys think?

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, I don’t really think, the President’s remarks last night moved the needle for anybody. I think positions are pretty well entrenched and it does seem to be largely bipartisan. But the one thing I would like to say, or one of the things I’d like to say, I think it’s important to separate what the members of Congress say in public and what they say in private, and those are often two very, very different things. I think there’s some initial confusion over what the objectives in the stated desire or what the desired end state of the operation was. I think most of that has been clarified. And I would say there’s general support, certainly, you know, on the Republican side support that. And [00:09:00] I think the less ambiguity that the President has, the more support he’s gonna get from Congress. However, the caveat to that is, for President Trump, strategic ambiguity is a negotiating tactic.

So a lot of what he said last night, and a lot of what we’ve said leading up to this, I think is the art of the deal, you know, writ large in national security. The reason I say those things is if you look, there were at least two votes. One in the House, one in the Senate, on limiting the President’s authority under the War Powers Act.

Both of those resolutions failed. So he’s got carte blanche for 60 days, which means another 30 days before he has to go back to Congress to justify what he’s doing Under the War Powers Act. We’ll know more then how things are going. And as you know, success has many fathers and failure’s an orphan.

So in 30 days, if things are going well and it looks like we’ve wrapped up and oil is flowing through the Straight of Hormuz again. Everybody’s gonna be happy, there’ll be great rejoicing, but if it’s the other way, not so much. And then, the other part, look for what comes out in the FY27 [00:10:00] budget request. Is there gonna be a weapon supplemental? And I know Lazer will probably talk a little bit more about that. And then is there gonna be a reconciliation 2.0? If you see those go through, then that’s a ringing endorsement of the President’s plan because budget is your priority and we’ll see where that falls out.

So Lazer, what do you think?

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: No, I agree with everything you said, Sledge. You know, I mean there is a bipartisan agreement on a large part. I mean, I think they all agree that Iran and its proxies are a threat and it impacts stability in the region, also impacts the United States. I think they also agree that Iran and its proxy has been responsible for targeting US military forces, diplomats, civilians, since 1979, Beirut Barracks, Cobar Towers, our troops in Iraq. And I think the bipartisan frustration also, we’ve heard it from both HASC chair ranking member and SASC ranking member on a lack of transparency or understanding what’s going on.

Even [00:11:00] despite a couple of briefings that members have gotten in March, but where they disagree is the threat of an imminent attack. And I think what you’re seeing between the Democrats and Republicans is the Democrats are upset, number one, at not being briefed ahead of time. And then as Sledge was saying that they feel that there isn’t a strategy.

Although I don’t think last night maybe so much moved the needle, but I think it was important for the President to get out there. But the Democrats do feel that the President Trump has exceeded his authority to wage war and getting back into what Sledge said, yeah, they started on the 28th of Feb so you got till the 28th of April. The president said two to three more weeks and then you have a 30 day withdrawal period. So, we’ll just have to wait and see what happens. But right now it, it appears that Congress is behind the President and Secretary Hegseth.

Doug Birkey: How much do you think the midterms impact the political calculation for members of Congress on this? ‘Cause if this happened last year, it’d be one thing, but with election, you know, a [00:12:00] couple months away, what do you think? Is that a factor?

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Yeah, I’ll jump in Sledge and it always is a factor. Everything that happens in the election year is a factor. So, they’re weighing on what their constituents, say and as they’re going out and they’re back in the states a lot and going to town halls, they’re out there listening and making sure that their constituents, feelings are reflected but it’s not gonna override where they are, but it is a factor.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, I would agree with that. And, you know, we are still a fair ways away from the midterms, but, you know, when we start getting into late June, July, and into August, it’s really gonna be what’s the impact on the economy of the operation.

That’s what voters are gonna turn out and say, you know what? In November, if things don’t look good or we’re heading in the wrong direction, the party that’s in power usually gets voted out. So the president’s got a couple, I would say probably two months to right the [00:13:00] ship here.

But if we don’t see some improvement in the price of gas, the price of groceries and stuff, come late summer leading up into the November election, then I think that’ll show with the polls.

Doug Birkey: Yeah, really fair points. JV, you know, we hit upon this a lot. But I wanna, in our writings, and I don’t wanna take this head on here: Air and Missile Defense. It’s been an unfunded priority for years. Iran, they’re calling our cards on this. What do you think are the key lessons learned coming out of this fight?

John “JV” Venable: It’s a big question. The Army was given the chore of air and missile defense way back, 1948. Ground base air defense was their job. We’ve had a couple of discussions and MOUs that have bantered back and forth about resources, but those MOUs, if they were in existence back in the eighties, they’re no longer in play. We absolutely need to defend our bases. We’re no longer living in a sanctuary state anywhere we go. And that ground [00:14:00] base air defense has gotta be in place.

When we talk about resourcing, it has been resourced very heavily in a sense. 20 to 25 billion dollars a year is what the Army spends on air and missile defense. But that’s not enough, and they are not covering our bases. It seems like the Air Force is the only service that’s truly embraced that joint idea. We refuel their Navy assets. We move army assets very willingly, but when it comes to defending our bases, it’s kinda left in on our side of the fence. Now we’ve gotta swallow that reality. The job of the service is to organize, train, and equip. The Air Force is not organized, trained, or equipped to provide the air and missile defense role.

In order to do that, you’d have to identify, then grow a branch within the Air Force, and that’s gonna take time. And [00:15:00] so for this conflict and for the remaining next 2, 3, 5 years until we can take the reins of that, it’s going to be the Army’s job. And they are the least committed to this fight. We should be demanding lock, stock, and barrel.

That they’re avenger systems, stinger batteries, CRAM, everything that they can move forward, moves in to defend our bases. And that should be the Chief should be pounding on the table right now to make that happen. But we also need to start moving assets into it because it’s obvious that this is gonna be our role.

And that’s a tough thing to swallow. But I’ve bantered this around for a while, is moving our security forces who are the most likely to take on this role, most likely branch to take on this role, move them over into the A3/5 area. Move them out of the A4 and then start pumping money into it and start growing this capability. But again, that’s a big chore and it’s a long range product.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, if I could just [00:16:00] jump in there. I think, you know, the FY 27 budget’s gonna be out here in a couple weeks, you know, hopefully we’ll get justification books by the end of April. But to your point, JV if there’s nothing in the 27 budget request, we know where the Air Force stands on Air Missile Defense, I think you’re gonna start seeing robust investment.

I don’t know about the organizational changes there, but we need to do something in the near term to solve this problem. Because you’re absolutely right. You know, the Army has beat up the Air Force since the Key West agreements that we don’t provide enough close air support, and that was their justification for getting attack helicopters.

We see the same thing in, in airbase defense. It’s time for us to get TOA from the Army and start protecting the assets that we deploy forward and even at our home basis.

John “JV” Venable: Amen.

Doug Birkey: No, I’m glad you guys brought up the budget piece. ’cause train organizing quip only works if there’s money, and I was frustrated to see the Air Force.

That’s really when I saw that the tone change last year when they said, well, we’ll just have to do this ourselves. No, you guys gotta [00:17:00] throw an absolute fit over this to draw attention to the fact that you don’t have the cash. It’s just an unfunded resource. The other thing I think it’s really important on this too, is to highlight that an offensive campaign is also crucial.

This is not just catchers mit campaign here, but the fact we’re going after the launchers and the storage depots and things like that has been so successful. And if you look at, especially like what MQ-9 has done, going after some of those targets and all, it’s pretty eye watering and it’s all of it.

But the cash has gotta come. This isn’t gonna work. And some of these losses have been painful to see because they’re so preventable and we’ve been screaming about it forever.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Yeah, Doug. One other thing, I mean, we talk about defense, but we put everything out in the open. We’ve been doing that for a long time, except Cold War, which we had shelters and hangers and stuff.

And now I’m watching and I’m looking at, you know, maybe we’re gonna need to start, providing some additional security, especially for some high value assets.

Doug Birkey: No, and especially I [00:18:00] think when the allies wants us to actually base in their locations and provide kind that umbrella of sport that needs to increasingly be one of the asks.

I mean, I do remember the F-117s operating out of the sheltered hangers during Desert Storm and all, I mean. It’s increasingly important to build that in.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Used to get lost taxing all through that area.

Doug Birkey: Hey Jen, you know I mentioned earlier, but we hosted our Space Power Security forum yesterday, and I mean, we are so appreciative that leaders like General Saltzman Under Secretary of the Air Force Lohmeier, Lieutenant General Schiess, Lieutenant General Miller, Lieutenant General Bythewood, Air Marshall Godfrey, Dr. Sandhoo, and others, you know, they’re all there to share their thoughts with us. When you guys put together a varsity lineup, what were your main takeaways?

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Well, yesterday was a really great day, so our theme was from space acquisition to space warfighting how capabilities become combat power, and we ran the gambit.

CSOs started us off talking to acquisition reform, the future operating environment [00:19:00] 2040, and the objective force. We’re waiting to hear a lot more about those last two things. We discussed everything from training to infrastructure to future operations. Now, a couple of things that I walked away with include this admonition that as we continue to grow the Space force and oh my gosh, we are growing the space force.

We can’t forget the basics. Training systems need to be procured with operational systems. We must budget for milcon to hold the guardians, not just the actual people, but the missions as well. As we increase both the end strength as well as the mission allotment that the Space Force is taking on, we learned that the service components are really earning their pay out there in the combatant commands. And that’s really proving out in CENTCOM as we’ve been talking about with operation Epic Fury.

Overall, it was a really enlightening day and just a huge thanks to everyone who was on stage as well as all the folks who just came out to listen and learn.

Doug Birkey: Now, laser, you were there. What were your thoughts?

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: [00:20:00] Yeah, I thought well done. It was an outstanding event and as an air breather. Right, and former recipient of boots of everything that was out there from space. Honestly, I gained a greater appreciation for not only the importance of the Space Force, but the need to ensure that it has the ability to engage in both offensive and defensive operations on a daily basis.

Something that we don’t understand, most of us out there. And that’s what’s important about the forum, because I thought the forum brought forward what is going on day to day as well during combat operations. And then the other point, which, you know, I thought General Salzman emphasized was the expertise of our guardians.

And then I’ll also say in General Salzmann’s leadership to be able to execute those operations. He talked about the invisible front line, and he’s right. We don’t see what happens day to day, what our guardians do day to day. And then, you know, as an airman, I always think about air superiority.

We talk about it all the time, but I think this [00:21:00] forum and then Operation Epic Fury and the press, and I’m not always singing praises about the press, but the fact that they attended asked questions and got information out gives everybody a better understanding on what it means to achieve space superiority and why it’s so important.

So I know we have the upper hand in space, that our adversaries are working to take that away and we can’t let them.

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Amen.

Doug Birkey: Now, and I think, you know, in reflecting upon this, we first created this forum five years ago, and I think about the evolution of the remarks. I mean, we did this first when General Raymond was CSO, obviously first, CSO, and I think about what they were talking about then, and then I think about what speakers addressed yesterday.

And it is such a rapid evolution of what that service is doing in their focus areas. And where I’d really give ’em kudos right now is just hammering that space is a war fighting domain. That was not said forcefully in our first forum ’cause they were not allowed to. The [00:22:00] political handcuffs were aggressive and we gotta a call it like it is.

And hats off to these guys who are doing it yesterday. They nailed it.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Everything in Sledge knows this every, we couldn’t even, I mean it’s all TS/SCI. We couldn’t even talk about it. And so the fact that we’re able to talk about it now, that’s important.

Doug Birkey: No, absolutely.

Okay, the budget release is imminent. What are you looking for when it comes to challenges and opportunities? Let’s go around the table. General Deptula, we’ll start with you.

Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Let me give you a succinct answer. What I’m looking for in this budget is that it finally takes two major actions. One that it stops the decades long decline in Air Force force structure. And two, it increases the funding and size of the Space Force to actually meet the demands of the national security strategy. Okay, so that’s it in a nutshell.

Yeah, as everyone out there is aware the devil’s in the details. But here’s why I [00:23:00] say all that stuff. The threat is too proximate. It’s too large and it’s too immediate for us to keep retiring more aircraft than we buy every year. For too long administrations of both political parties and the Congress let the Air Force shrink and age while asking it to do more and more everywhere in the world all the time. Now, at the same time, we’ve stood up a space force that’s absolutely essential to modern war fighting, but is still under resourced and too small for the mission it already carries.

So the question on Friday is not simply whether the top line is bigger. The real question is whether the budget translates additional funding into executable production, force growth, and modernization. Now, the good news is that the options for the next [00:24:00] decade are not mysterious. We already know what needs to be built.

We should be looking for serious production growth. In systems like the B-21, F-47, F-35, F-15EX, E-7, T-7, KC-46, Collaborative Combat Aircraft, EA-37B, and an entire array of munitions. It also makes sense to tap other hotlines where useful capacity can be attained even quicker. And here I’m thinking about advanced F-16s and MQ-9Bs.

The same logic applies to long range kill chains, resilient command and control electronic warfare in the broader enterprise that makes the force effective instead of hollow. Now, these are not speculative bets, these are known production lines, known mission [00:25:00] gaps and known readiness deficiencies. If funding is sustained over multiple years, industry can respond.

On the other hand, if it’s just a one year spike, it won’t. that’s why predictability matters just as much as size. And, I’d like to add one more issue that can no longer be deferred, and that’s air and cruise missile defense. The time has come the Department of the Air Force bases both in air and space or on that, you know, on the Air Force in the Space Force are increasingly vulnerable to ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and uninhabited aerial vehicles also known as drones.

We can’t keep assuming the Army will fulfill its joint responsibilities of base defense because that just is not worked out to speak candidly. And but on the [00:26:00] other hand, if the Department of the Air Force is gonna pick up this Army primary role then it needs to be allocated the funds to do that from the Army.

Now of course, longer range solutions are important as well. but the reality is that we need to rebuild the force that we’re gonna rely on for the next decade, and beyond. Right now, folks should be less interested in eloquent 2040 and 2050 concepts than in whether this budget restores usable capacity, readiness, and production in the near term.

I mean, my gosh, there’s no better example than that than in the first month of Epic Fury, we launched over 2000 Patriots. You know, less than a thousand were fired in the four years in the Russia-Ukraine fight. And by the way, we’re only producing about 600 of those a year.

So current [00:27:00] capabilities are so fragile that this is a now or never moment. If we fail to modernize today, some missions are simply gonna sunset because the force will age out faster than they can be recapitalized. So my bottom line is this. On Friday I’ll be looking for a budget that grows real production, expands capacity, improves readiness.

Strengthens air and missile defense and gives both the Air Force and the Space Force to sustained resources they need to meet global demand. If it does that, then it’ll be most welcome.

Doug Birkey: Yeah, I think the key in making a lot of that happen is gonna be multi-year contracts. The predictability has got to be there for industry.

And you look at F-35 line, you know, one year we were buying up to 60 for the Air Force last year was 24. You can’t jerk around suppliers, everybody else like that, it doesn’t work. And it precludes them from making the investment and I think that’s gonna be the only way to really solve this. I’m really curious to what, what’s gonna happen this year on that front.

Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): [00:28:00] Absolutely.

John “JV” Venable: I’ll pick it up from there Doug. The thing that I really have been dwelling on for the last several years is readiness. We’ve got to see weapon system sustainment accounts, and flying hour accounts go up.

There’s internal pushback to that, believe it or not, within the Air Force all the way down to the wing and the squadron level. But we have to flush that system with spare parts. We’ve been funding weapon system sustainment to 85% of what the flying hour requirement is today, and so we’ve gotta bring that up to a hundred percent and keep it there for a while.

Again, people are gonna push back on that saying you can’t use all those spare parts. You don’t know how bad of a deficit we are, how many airplanes that have been cannibalized on air fields. Those spare parts need to be replaced and start bringing our expectations of what an air squadron can generate up to speed from where we are right now at an 18 or a 24 PAA squadron [00:29:00] generating 12 airplanes. That’s the expectation now? It should be 16 to 18 for a 24 PAA squadron. And we’ve gotta bring that back into a realistic opportunity and capability by bringing those spare parts up to speed. And the second one is the flying hour program.

So between the two of them, you’re looking at just bringing it up to an increment of 10% above where we are right now. You’re looking at three to $4 billion. And I would love to see it actually be more than that. Tied to that has gotta be a campaign inside of the Air Force, which is gonna change the mindsets.

We’ve gotta start flying hard. We’ve gotta start expecting more out of our aviators and more out of our maintainers and bringing flying hour contracts back into bear. The Air Force will tell you those have never gone away. Well, they’re not contracts unless they’re enforced and promotions and everything else that wing commanders should be expecting should be [00:30:00] predicated on them living up and flying the number of hours that they’re given.

And once you do that, you’re going to start seeing every other aspect of readiness come up across the board. We had a dominant feeling back in the eighties. In the early nineties, we were dominant because we had been trained to a point where we could handle anything. I remember flying five or six times a week, and when I was flying at those rates, I could do everything better and it was confidence that gave me that.

That confidence needs to be infused across the service, and it begins with the operational units. And once we bring those up to speed and get those folks really firing on all cylinders again, then the rest of the service will come around as well.

Doug Birkey: Now, I’m glad you highlighted that readiness focus because you know, we’ve talked to a lot of the folks that were actually in key positions during the Reagan buildup. And if you compare their mindset then and what they’re dealing with, and you look at where we are now, it’s almost two separate services.

And that’s dangerous [00:31:00] because I know one was decisive. And the other today it’s stretched and we’ve gotta get back to decisive because that’s what the world’s asking for. And then I look to things too, like the tie into readiness in the industrial base. The parts come off the same lines, right? We have to size those lines to do both the spare parts and the new builds of the actual airframes.

And right now it’s kind of, which one do you want? Parts or new airframes. We gotta do both. And I think also it’s just the mindset piece. And you know, we’ve talked to General Fogleman a lot about this recently, and it was even adjusted for him back in the eighties. What people are asking for, they said, you know, go back to the table.

You’re not giving us enough. And he did, and finally get his head around it.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Well, hey, if I could jump on in there before we move on it but don’t forget too, I mean, you need to baseline the problem that was solved in the eighties and nineties with the Reagan buildup. And look, half a generation the guys that were the senior leaders in our fighter squadrons when we were lieutenants.

In the seventies we were in a worse place than we are today. So it is recoverable, but you’re absolutely right JV, it [00:32:00] requires investment.

John “JV” Venable: Yeah, and the other side that you brought up the double-edged statement, the Reagan buildup. It was a Reagan reflush of the service. It, we added no additional fighter squadrons to the fleet.

Doug Birkey: They turned it over.

John “JV” Venable: We just made those fighter squadrons renewed with new aircraft and just pumped ’em with flying hours. What we are in the process of doing right now is in retreat, continual retreat on the number of fighter squadrons that we have. And once they’re lost, once we actually fold up the flag of a fighter squadron, it is almost impossible to get it back.

If you shut down a guard or reserve unit for three years thinking you’re going to get that back up to speed with no airplanes for that time and bring it back up into a fighter world. I think you’re just, you’re kidding yourself. Readiness is absolutely incumbent on weapon system sustainment, flying hours, and funding our maintainers to the right level, but also making sure that our air force is as fit as it [00:33:00] can with brand new aircraft.

And we’ve got to start investing heavily in that and that’s one of the sides of this. I know the boss talked about multi-year procurement of F-35s and F-15EXs. You bring that up to five years, you make the parts suppliers for those two major metal benders, Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

You bring that all into a healthy environment and with them, you bring that spare parts aspect to it too. And money is going to make that happen, and long-term commitments to those contractors is gonna make that happen.

Doug Birkey: Absolutely. Jen, what are your thoughts from space?

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: The key thing that we’re thinking about is that space is it’s a growth area, right?

Think about FY26. The funding there is landing around 40 billion when you include reconciliation, and that is a significant jump in what we’ve seen in previous years since the Space Force has been brought into existence. And it really does reflect how central space has become to join operations, right?

But a lot of that money is going towards [00:34:00] missile warning and tracking, long range kill chains, right? The space enabled sensing and targeting architecture that connects the fight. And then, as we talked about yesterday, the basics training systems, facilities, more end strength for growth. We’re also seeing major investments tied to Homeland Missile defense, Golden Dome, it’s gonna be a big one.

Billions going into space-based sensors and data networks. So I think the big takeaway if you wanted to wrap it all up, is that it’s no longer this niche part of the budget. It’s still small but it’s not just this niche thing. It’s becoming central to how we plan to fight and defend going forward.

Doug Birkey: And I think a key part of how you guys grow too is it’s the absorption rate. We’re, we’ve gotta get you bigger, but you can only grow so much each year. You can’t do it all at once. It’s like a major league baseball team. If you have too many guys from AAA joining all at once and not enough veterans to help train them and get them up to step, you kind of melt down. And so that funding line’s gotta maintain that growth, I think.

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Right. Remember, what does it [00:35:00] take to create a 10 year tech sergeant? It takes 10 years.

Doug Birkey: 10 years, exactly.

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: So-

John “JV” Venable: 10 years. It’s 10 years.

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Something like that.

Doug Birkey: Yep.

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: So anyway. Yeah, we have to think about that.

And so that’s sort of soup to nuts. You have to bring them up from the beginning. But we’ve gotta increase end strength first and that, you know, that shows up in one number, but also you have to reflect that in the dollars.

Doug Birkey: No, absolutely.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Yeah, I’ll put on my congressional staffer hat here.

I’d love to see a full budget with a five year plan, which we didn’t see in the past. And of course, you know, as Sledge said, we’re not gonna see that on the third. We’re expecting to see it on the rollout on the 21st of April. But, you know, I’d like to see specifically what’s being requested. How does it match the defense you know, strategy.

The global threats and again, with that five year plan, what is the plan? It gets into what Boots, JV were saying, you know, it’s just not about spending for one year, but if we’re looking out at multi-years, what are we gonna spend on these systems? And then, you know, we’re all here at [00:36:00] 1.45, but it what’s in the base budget and I think we’re gonna probably see around a $1.1 trillion base budget.

And then Sledge had talked about a supplemental or maybe reconciliation funding. Well, there’s no guarantees on that funding. So we have to just look at the base budget and figure out what does the base budget get us and does it achieve what we need to achieve? Because I can’t rely on that additional funding.

And if I were look specifically at Air and Space Forces, you know, Boots, you said it. I’m looking at assets and personnel. How do we grow? JV talked about modernization, man, unmanned. The other thing is munitions. Our wartime munitions reserve. We raid that all the time and we’ve never had the stockpile we need for an INDOPACOM operation.

And then you already talked about readiness nuclear monetization and the weapons, but the silos, infrastructure, command and control, that’s a big bill payer out there. Infrastructure, [00:37:00] and then you guys talked about it earlier, base defense, growing UAS threat both here and overseas and, you know, we’re seeing it.

I mean, even the attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi, UAE, I mean, so what’s in the budget, or where, is there anything in there to protect the installations? And then always, and Sledge, you talk about this all the time, people taking care of our force.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah. The last thing I would say, Doug. I’m gonna jump back to the premise of your original question, is the thing that I’m gonna look at, that I look at every year is, top line number’s important, but what’s the breakout between RDT&E funding and procurement? And JV I know you’ve written a lot about this. I think that the Air Forces the balance between RDT&E and procurement is out of whack. We have been investing way too much in RDT&E and we’re failing to buy things. And the reason I say that is, and I’m not saying we shouldn’t be investing in future capabilities and we shouldn’t be trying to develop, you know, cutting edge technologies, but at some point you’ve gotta buy [00:38:00] things.

And if you’re spending so much trying to develop gold plated solutions to everything or the next greatest technology, you realize that you don’t have the mass you need to fight the war of today. So to me, getting back to more historical you know, 12 to 15%, which is about what most defense companies do in Irad, if they’ve got a good R&D program investment so we can develop those future technologies, but then be able to buy the sufficient force structure to provide the capability and the capacity that we need. And I said this year ago at the same time, but probably, the best thing I’ve ever read on this topic was a short story by Arthur C. Clark. I read it about 30 years ago when I was a student at the National War College.

It’s called superiority. And it talks about the interstellar war where the losing side was said. It wasn’t that our technology was superior or inferior. We had superior technology, but we were so worried about finding the right technical solution that we [00:39:00] forgot about buying stuff and the enemy was able to overwhelm us.

So I think that’s what I look for when the budget comes out.

John “JV” Venable: Yeah, I couldn’t agree with you more. And if you look at Golden Dome and the RDT&E plus up, that’s gonna come with that’s gonna send us into a disproportionate level of 60%. You’re gonna spend 60% more on RDT&E than you do procurement.

The last time we, we spent more on procurement than RDT&E was 2017, I believe, and then never. Before that in the history of the Air Force, did RDT&E ever exceed the amount of money that we put into procurement? It is way out of balance, and I couldn’t agree with you more. We need to start buying metal.

Doug Birkey: No, absolutely. Okay. JV, I wanna circle back on readiness. When General Kelly was Commander Air Combat Command, he talked about consuming Air Force readiness. You know, that we could burn through muscle and hip bone. And we know things are thin right now, and current [00:40:00] operations over Iran are pushing the force hard.

And obviously, I want to emphasize our airmen are pushing it up 110%. I want, don’t want take away from that point of it, but how do you assess this risk? There’s only so much that individuals can do through just sheer effort and bravery in the moment, and it’s important to really. Tip the hat and salute them for doing that.

But we also gotta be fair to them by equipping them for success and training them for success. How do you evaluate where we are in the cycle looking at current ops?

John “JV” Venable: A great question. So what we’re doing now in Epic Fury is pretty amazing.

The reps and sets guys are getting in combat operations are significant and you’re seeing it across the board. Right now, we’ve got, B-52s flying over Iran itself, everything is there. We’ve deployed three of the five operational, A-10 units into that operation, and they’re just doing great work because they can. The threat environment has [00:41:00] been reduced to a point that they can freely operate over the landmass of Iran almost in its entirety now.

That’s great. Wonderful news. The folks who are back home right now are not getting those sorties. And the same thing happened throughout OIF and OEF. We would surge assets forward, and if you were in the fight, you flew a lot, and if you were back home, you trained very little. And so we get into this rhythm of training where you’re flying as a fighter pilot one to two times a week.

I don’t know what it was like when you were there, Sledge or Laser, but when I flew once a week, I would actually get in the airplane and say that right stuff prayer, please, Lord, don’t let me mess up today. But when I was flying three or four times, I was dominant, right? The difference is night and day.

And if we’re flying one or two times at home, we are not ready for the big fight. We can go into a threat free environment like we did over Iraq and Afghanistan and do good work, right where we are right now in this [00:42:00] operation over Iran is right there. I mean, we are a free reign. The threat was reduced by and large by the Israeli actions and our actions last summer and right now that threat is gone.

But if we go to the Pacific and we fight the Chinese there, they’re integrated air defense is just massive. And giving people the courage they need and the reps and sets they need to go in and take that system down. It only comes through the readiness we build today. If you equate this to a football team, think about a professional football team practicing once or twice a week, and another team in the NFL practicing every day.

It’s a slaughter that’s gonna happen on Sunday. We don’t want to set our guys and gals up for that. We want to set them up for success and that comes with a dominant mindset and that comes through reps and sets.

Doug Birkey: Yeah. Well said. Okay. Laser and Sledge. I want to talk about [00:43:00] divest-to-invest. You know, Mitchell’s been very clearly opposed to this over the years and you know, right now we’re seeing A-10s headed back into into the Gulf for another round. Those numbers are growing. MQ-9s, we’ve seen a lot of press on ’em. They’re playing a dominant role. E-3s are very hard at work. And these are all assets that the Air Force has sought that divest in recent years. What does this signal, you know? Sledge, let’s start with you.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Wow. There’s a lot to unpack in that question. And we’ve said it many times on this podcast that that divest to invest is a losing strategy. It has been for the Air Force for years. I can’t remember if it was you, Doug or JV earlier said the Air and Missile defense rule. The Air Force just said, you know, we’re gonna pick this up. We’re gonna take it on.

That’s the culture of airman. You know, we look at a problem and say, okay this is my mission. This is my strategy, let’s go. And we’re willing to get the job done without asking for additional resources. And that sometimes comes back to bite us.

[00:44:00] So, I think we tend to look at force planning in a resource constrained environment which creates capacity and capability shortfalls. So we don’t get the assets that we need, but we just say, you know what? There’s the problem, let’s go solve it. To the the example in Iran, if you would ask me two months ago if I ever expected to see B-52s flying over mainland Iran, I would’ve said no way.

So as we go through our force planning exercises. There’s a hundred percent chance we’re not gonna get it a hundred percent right. So you’ve gotta have the flexibility and the bandwidth, the capacity to do things you don’t expect. I hope you know, as we go through budget deliberations, and I know in the building they’re already working on POM 28, that the folks in the 5-7 that are looking at force design say okay, I need to make sure that I get the balance right here. We may not need to have an entire force [00:45:00] of six fifth generation platforms. Once I get the door knocked down, I need to have mass that I can do weight of effort actions against the enemy. And I hope that, that’s the lesson that we’re learning from here and not the, I’m gonna do more with the less that that we’re given every year.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: And you can go put back when you were in Chambliss office Sledge. So, Creighton Green one of my mentors in the Senate Armed Services Committee called this the Wimpy Syndrome. I would gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today. And we’ve been fighting this effort and Mitchell Institute and a lot of us in the Air Force.

since 2009, I was working for Senator Inhofe. We continued with you Sledge, when you were with Chambliss in 2012. And it was wrong back then. It’s wrong today. General Deptula and the Mitchell Institute continues to be outspoken. If I think most of us on this podcast, remember CAF [00:46:00] Redux initiated by Secretary Gates, right?

250 older aircraft ’15s, ’16s, A-10s and we ended up with a smaller older force. Alright and then the next piece was, oh, let’s get rid of people. And then we wound up with less people. So now as General Deptula says over and over again, we’re the smallest air force in our history. And then the other problem with divesting to invest is the amount you save in operations and maintenance doesn’t even come close to what it costs to modernize the force.

So it’s a death spiral, which we’re seeing it. But the good thing is, you know, Congress continues and has and continues to push back on divest to invest. We set floors, although people keep wanting to try to change those floors and certain individuals get upset at Congress ’cause if they bring ’em parochial and all we’re trying to do is save the Air Force sometimes from itself.

To ensure that it means the combat capability it needs. I don’t know if I necessarily see the Pentagon [00:47:00] changing its ways. I’ll stay hopeful. But I think Congress is. It’s gonna be a constant battle where Congress is gonna try to help the Air Force maintain its Combat capability.

John “JV” Venable: Doug, if I could jump in.

Yeah, this is it is the death spiral that Lazer just mentioned and we need to stop it now. And the impossibility of that statement begins with, we need to not retire the A-10s. Oh no, you gotta understand, the depot is shutdown. The pipeline, there’s no more RTUs. No we need to stop it and keep those A-10s flying right now.

Congress is the only reason why we have A-10s in the Persian Gulf right now. They held it to 98 PMAI. That’s five squadrons and three of those five at least, are in the Gulf right now. And there is no platform in the world that can operate over that territory the way we would need if we’re going to have a ground invasion. If we’re going to actually go out and search out and find these [00:48:00] little shooters of these drones and the ballistic missiles that pop up, those guys, can ID it and kill ’em with their gun very rapidly.

So for me, the idea of stopping that death spiral is going to be a painful statement that says. If we’re gonna stop it, we have to stop it now. If we don’t do that, those five squadrons, three of them will never return because of the the F-35 pipeline, the F-15EX pipeline and the other extra jets that we’re going to play a shell game on, supposedly to replace their A-10s with F-16s that will not materialize, and those squadrons will go away.

Right now we’re at 54. 54 fighter squadrons. If we look at how many are available after the shutdown of the A-10s, that brings it down to 49. There are three squadrons that are right now in almost terminal transition. They don’t have aircraft or they have partial aircraft, and they’re not gonna get ’em any faster than two to three [00:49:00] years from right now.

And so this idea that we are in a bad spot, we got more than half of our tactical assets in the Gulf right now. Fighting a third world country, think about having to turn that west and go and fight with what we’ve got with China. That’s crazy.

Doug Birkey: Yeah, and I think it is important to emphasize that we are not in love with old airplanes.

It’s quite the opposite. What we’re in love with is the right capacity with modern capabilities, and that means you gotta recapitalize at scale to replace what you’re divesting. That’s what we’re all about. And so we’re not necessarily in love. With putting jets that are 50 years old over combat situation. There just have to be jets there, that are capable.

And we’ve been cheating that for way too long. And JV, like you said, the China demand signals can be through the roof at later in concurrent multi theatre demand, and especially the homeland, the air missile threat that we’re seeing over our bases in the Gulf, that will be seen over the homeland in a serious fight.

And that’s gonna do a lot of [00:50:00] holdback and we’ve gotta be scaled to do it all. There’s no choice.

John “JV” Venable: Completely agree, Doug.

Doug Birkey: Yeah.

So General Deptula and Iranian missile appears to have damaged an F-35. What is this signal for the future stealth? Is it dead like we’ve heard from some or does it just need to evolve?

Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Doug what I’d tell you is the reported damage to an F-35 by an Iranian service to air missile is operationally noteworthy, but it should not be over interpreted. High-end combat against a capable, integrated air defense system has always involved risk.

The real story here is not that an aircraft was hit. The real story is that after thousands of coalition strikes inside Iran and thousands of sorties flown within range of Iranian air defenses, combat losses have been essentially nil. There have been no confirmed friendly manned aircraft losses [00:51:00] airborne to enemy action, and we’ve taken some hits on the ground.

And there are reasons why that happened. It goes back to air base defense that, again, has been neglected by the Army for decades now. But back to the point. It is absolutely extraordinary by historical standards that we haven’t taken an aircraft, a manned aircraft loss over Iran.

If you go back to Vietnam, sustained operations against a sophisticated Soviet backed air defense network came at enormous cost. Nearly all the F-105s, I’m sorry, not all half of the F-105s produced were lost in combat. And overall the US lost over 1,700 fixed wing aircraft in that war.

Okay. Granted, that was over seven years. [00:52:00] But that kind of attrition was not unusual for high intensity operations against layer defenses. It was the expected price of penetrating defended airspace. So against that backdrop, the fact that an F-35 was damaged but recovered does not discredit stealth. Indeed, it reinforces just how effective modern aircraft and air power has become. And stealth was never meant to mean invisibility. It means dramatically reducing detection, tracking, and engagement opportunities across the battle space. And in the case of the F-35 stealth is only one part of the equation. It’s paired with advanced electronic warfare, sensor fusion, networked ops, real-time intelligence, and a broader suppression and destruction of enemy air defense effort. [00:53:00] So in other words, stealth is part of an operational system designed not just to penetrate an integrated air defense system, but to dismantle and dominate it.

So for the future of self. The answer is this stealth remains indispensable, but it must be understood correctly. It’s not a magic cloak of invisibility. It’s a survivability enhancer and a mission effectiveness multiplier within a much larger combat architecture. The future is not stealth alone. It’s stealth integrated with electronic attack, cyber effects, standoff weapons, resilient command and control, and highly trained operators. And let me add one more point. The contrast with the Russia, Ukraine War here is very instructive. In that case, neither side has achieved true air superiority, and the [00:54:00] result is a grinding war of attrition with limited maneuver and enormous cost.

In contrast, US and Israeli operations against Iran show what air superiority moving toward air supremacy looks like in practice, the ability to operate in contested airspace with minimal losses while systematically denying the enemy meaningful success. So my bottom line here is simple. One damaged F-35 is a reminder that modern combat is never risk-free, but the absence of losses across such a large campaign is a testament to just how far stealth enabled air power has advanced.

The lesson is not that stealth is obsolete. The lesson is its stealth, properly integrated into a broader system of dominance. Remains one of the decisive advantages [00:55:00] in modern warfare.

Doug Birkey: Okay. Laser and Sledge. Let’s get through this one fast. Because we talked about, Iran for a long time, but a lot of things happening on the Hill right now. Budget teed up for a release real soon.

So what are the main movers that we should be tracking?

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Yeah, we’re in a rhythm that military members and their family know well hurry up and wait. So, we’re in an election year, which means Congress is not gonna focus on completing approps bills, defense authorization bills until after the election’s complete.

So right now, Senate is in recess till Monday the 13th of April, and then the House until the 14th. Priority one for Congress is to fund Department of Homeland Security, which by the way, today, they made a significant move forward. So the Senate had passed a bill. They didn’t fund ICE and part of Customs and Borders.

They sent it over to the House. The House rejected it. They sent back essentially a continuing resolution till the 22nd of May. This morning and this was [00:56:00] after discussions between House and Senate Republican leadership and the White House. They have rejected what the House sent over and sent the original bill back, which we are told the House will pass next week.

So Homeland Security should be funding FY 26. Sometime the week of the 13th, the House should pass that and move forward. So that’s a great thing. So then next up for Congress, there’s some voting legislation. There’s what they call the SAVE Act. SAVE,. It’s a voting Safeguard American Voting Eligibility Act.

They’ll work on that there. FISA, which is important. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that’s gonna be upfront. And then they’re gonna be looking at the budget. And they’re gonna be looking at the supplemental reconciliation we talked about. And if we look at the budget you know, as we discussed earlier, you got the 3rd of April is the skinny, and then we’ll finally see everything on the 21st.

What the 21st starts is the hearing process. [00:57:00] Now we have a hearing on the 15th with the White House Budget Director, and then from there it’ll turn into Combatant Command, Service Chief Secretaries, and then Secretary Hegseth and General Cane. All that should wrap up by May. So that the defense authorization and appropriations committees can start getting ready for marking up the bills, modifying the bills, and then hopefully we can get them marked up in June with some votes on the floor, some of those bills in the House and the Senate by July or before the August recess.

But then we get into this place where, okay, now we get into the August recess. Nothing happens. Congress comes back, they pass a continuing resolution in September that kicks the ball down beyond the election. And then they’ve got October again, they’re out. And then after the election, when they figure out who’s gonna be in control the next Congress, then they can try to work the bills.

And I’ll let Sledge go more deeper in the [00:58:00] supplemental reconciliation, but both are gonna be difficult to pass through Congress. And that’s why I was talking earlier about don’t count on that money. Although right now it does look like the second reconciliation package has got a higher likelihood of passing. And then Congress is still upset at the Pentagon because there was 150 billion first for defense and first reconciliation bill, which hasn’t all been executed yet. So then they’re saying, well, if you haven’t executed all of that, then why do you need this extra money?

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, L azer. I would I guess disagree and maybe I would ask you why do you think that reconciliation has a better chance of passing than a weapon suplement?

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: So you need 60 in the House, right? Or excuse me, 60 in the Senate. So if you’re gonna, and we’ve seen, you know, they’ve talked about it starts front at 50, then a hundred, then 150. Now I’ve seen up to $240 billion for a supplemental. And now if you’re gonna do a supplemental, I have to add non-defense [00:59:00] into that supplemental.

And sometimes it’s gotta be a one for one, right? but let’s just say it’s not. So I get up to $400 billion in a supplemental. I don’t know if we can get that passed. And then if you listen to what’s being discussed right now they’re looking at funding ICE and CVP in a reconciliation bill.

They’re talking about bringing a larger defense amount into that reconciliation bill, maybe up to 400, and then a few other things that they wanted to try to get done. And I don’t have an answer. I mean, it could be a supplemental, it could be reconciliation. I just think both are gonna be very difficult.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: I would agree with that. I do know though that the House budget committee is meeting with stakeholders. You know, both in the government and outside of the government about what a reconciliation 2.0 would look like. So I know they are committed and they remain confident that they’re gonna get some type of reconciliation.

I’m not sure they can get to 218 votes in the House. You know the 50 vote threshold in the Senate [01:00:00] is, whatever.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Tough.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, no, I agree.

And then I’m a little bit more sanguine about the the supplemental. I think if it’s properly scoped because of the ongoing operations you could probably get something modest passed, but you’re right, if it does become larded up with all sorts of other activities, I think that puts everything at risk.

And, you know, bottom line is there’s a lot to do. It’s an election year, so not a lot’s gonna get done.

And I also, I mean, how do you get up to 1.45 trillion on a defense bill? And it’s not through a supplemental, I don’t think.

Doug Birkey: No, all good points. Okay, Jen, let’s do a round robin in space. You know, first and foremost I want to say congrats to everybody associated with Artemis two.

That was very, very impressive and we’re gonna do a focused episode on this, given its critical importance. And, you know, bottom line, we’re back in a new space race of China, and I cannot emphasize how important it is for the United States to play hard and play to win on that. Any thoughts on that, Jen?

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Yeah. [01:01:00] So, when we’re talking about a new space race, and we should be, Artemis is exactly right at the center of it. But this is not a repeat of Apollo, right? This isn’t about firsts, about flags and footprints. This is about building a lasting presence and infrastructure associated with the moon.

The US is leading this coalition approach through the Artemis Accords, while China also is pursuing its own lunar architecture with other international partners. So what’s really at stake isn’t just getting to the moon, right? Which is what people will think. It’s about who is setting the rules, who is building the systems, and who is shaping access to cis lunar space.

Now, importantly for us, it’s the same industrial base and technologies enabling Artemis. Those are the ones that are underpinning national security space as well. So this isn’t a separate competition. This is about the same strategic landscape. This is very important.

Doug Birkey: No, so, so, so important. Okay, so Jen, let’s continue our look at space.

I understand the US GSSAP satellites executed a GEO [01:02:00] handoff to monitor China’s, I’m gonna try this here, Mike Dahm would correct me, but Shijian 29 spacecraft. Help us understand why that’s such a big deal.

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Okay. So if you wanna glimpse of what competition in space actually looks like day to day. This is it.

So these are US GSSAP satellites were observed coordinating tracking these Chinese spacecraft in GEO. And again, this was done by a commercial company who saw all of this happen and were, they’re calling it inspectors, watching inspectors. So, this is sort of space domain awareness at its most operational level where both sides are maneuvering to maintain visibility and potentially influence each other’s systems in space.

And I think what’s interesting is that it highlights how much of space competition is actually sitting in a gray zone, where it’s ambiguous. It’s happening all the time, but it’s just below the threshold of conflict. And now it really does raise a bigger question [01:03:00] about norms and red lines, because right now these are very much undefined and this really shows how much you can’t see very easily happening in space.

Doug Birkey: Oh, that is really, really important stuff. And it’s amazing that it was detected by a commercial company. I mean and we talked about that during the forum yesterday, where, you know, there’s certain things that you thought were national government levels, you know, in previous eras, but now industry is doing it.

It’s amazing.

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Absolutely.

Doug Birkey: Okay. The Space Force they completed a preliminary design review for its resilient missile warning and tracking EPOCH two constellation, and that, as I understand it, is a 10 satellite. MEO architecture designed to track advanced missile threats globally, and this expands missile warning outta GEO and HEO orbit.

Why is this a key development?

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Right? So that is the key thing, right? We are moving beyond traditional GEO systems, right? GEO that’s geostationary systems with a more distributed, resilient architecture that can track advanced threats like [01:04:00] hypersonics. And so this is really about, sort of survivability and persistence.

We’re building a sensing layer that can operate in a contested environment. It’s truly a new way of doing business for these types of systems. So the next thing to watch for is how this integrates with our proliferated Leo low earth orbit, right? This is medium earth orbit and how these are gonna integrate with our low earth orbit systems.

Because the real advantage from all of this is is layering these capabilities together from these different orbital regimes.

Doug Birkey: No. Very cool. Space Command says they’re gonna launch a war game series for industry. What’s significant about that?

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Okay, so as the architecture evolves, so does who’s involved in the fight?

Just as we talked about, we’re seeing commercial providers doing more and more that the military only used to do. So US Space Command is now bringing commercial companies directly into classified war games to work through some of these operational problems that we’re seeing in orbit. And this is really a big [01:05:00] shift from treating commercial purely as a service provider to treating them as part of the war fighting team.

And we just need to do that. It’s really cool. So it reflects the reality that the capabilities that we rely on, ISR, communications, tracking, they’re owned by industry and not just the military. And while the rest have at least been built by industry, industry is a hand in all of this, and we have to recognize this.

So the key question going forward is whether this will actually change how we plan and contract with these companies and how it stays. How the discussion continues to move forward where they have these new insights and war fighting tactics and techniques and procedures, et cetera.

Doug Birkey: No, and I wanna do a shout out to the workshops that you, Charles and Kyle lead, because it’s really the same thing where we bring together government industry, S&T and all that and it’s working that communication piece and insight.

So no. Awesome. The enhanced polar system, recapitalization was accepted into operations and that [01:06:00] extends secure SATCOM up to Arctic operations into the 2030s. Obviously we are huge proponents of taking Arctic security seriously. How does this play into all that?

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Well, this is a big deal. We’re seeing a shift in how we build systems with our allies.

So the Space Force declared operational acceptance of its Arctic SATCOM capability, EPSR, as you mentioned, which is hosted on Norwegian satellites. And I mean, they are the true experts of the Arctic, right? So this is the first time that the US has put an operational military payload on an Allied space platform, and that’s a huge deal.

It shows a move towards shared architectures that are faster and more flexible than going at it alone. And so the big question now is does this become a model for future systems, particularly in communications and other sensing methods?

Doug Birkey: No, that is very, very cool. Okay. That’s all we got now.

Thanks everybody.

Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah. Thanks again, Doug. Great show.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Great [01:07:00] job!

John “JV” Venable: Love being with you.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: We’ll see you next time.

Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Thanks so much. It was fun.

Doug Birkey: With that, I’d like to extend a big thank you to our guests for joining in today’s discussion. I’d also like to extend a big thank you to you, our listeners, for your continued support and for tuning into today’s show.

If you like what you heard, don’t forget to hit the like button and follow or subscribe to the Airspace Advantage. You can also leave a comment to let us know what you think about our show or areas that you’d like to see further exploration. And as always, you can join in the conversation by following Mitchell Institute on X, Instagram, Facebook, or LinkedIn, and you can always find us at mitchellaerospacepower.org.

Thanks again for joining us. We’ll see you next time.